Quarles v. Weeks
Filing
21
ORDER that the Defendant's Objections 19 are OVERRULED; the Memorandum and Recommendation 18 is ACCEPTED; and the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 8 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: the Defenda nt's Motion to Dismiss 8 is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's state law claim asserted against Defendant in his official capacity; and the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 8 is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's remaining claims. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 09/29/2017. (thh)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00304-MR-DLH
JUDESHIEA QUARLES,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
C.W. WEEKS,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by
the Defendant C.W. Weeks (hereinafter “Defendant”) [Doc. 8]; the Magistrate
Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation regarding the disposition of
that motion [Doc. 18]; and the Defendant’s Objections to the Memorandum
and Recommendation. [Doc. 19].
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the standing Orders of Designation
of this Court, the Honorable Dennis L. Howell, United States Magistrate
Judge, was designated to consider the pending motion in the abovecaptioned action. On July 6, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Memorandum
and Recommendation [Doc. 18], containing proposed conclusions of law in
support of a recommendation that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be
granted in part and denied in part. The parties were advised that any
objections to the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation
were to be filed in writing within fourteen (14) days of service. The Defendant
timely filed his Objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation on July
20, 2017. [Doc. 19]. The Plaintiff Judeshiea Quarles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”)
filed a Reply to the Defendant’s Objections on August 3, 2017. [Doc. 20].
In his Objections, the Defendant argues that the Magistrate Judge
erred in concluding that the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint adequately stated
claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and for malicious prosecution under state law.
[Doc. 19 at 3]. The Defendant also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s
conclusion that the Amended Complaint contained sufficient allegations to
support a punitive damages claims. [Id.] After careful consideration of the
Memorandum and Recommendation, the Court finds that the Magistrate
Judge’s proposed conclusions of law are correct and consistent with current
case law. Therefore, Defendant’s objections in this regard are overruled.
The Defendant also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s failure to take
“judicial notice” of certain certified public records, which the Defendant
contends “conclusively establish [that] probable cause existed for the
Plaintiff’s arrest.” [Id. at 4 and 5]. The Defendant argues that because the
issue of probable cause for Plaintiff’s arrest has already been judicially
determined, the Court must dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims. [Id. at 18 and 19].
2
The Defendant’s argument in this regard is misguided. Contrary to
Defendant’s argument, the Magistrate Judge did take judicial notice of the
arrest warrant, the audio recording of the probable cause hearing, the written
finding of probable cause, and the Bill of Indictment. [Doc. 18 at 5, 6, and 7].1
The Court’s notice of the existence of these judicial records, however, does
not bar the Plaintiff from challenging whether probable cause existed for his
arrest. While the Defendant contends that these documents conclusively
establish the existence of probable cause for Plaintiff’s arrest, that is not the
issue in this case. Rather, the pertinent inquiry is whether the Defendant
obtained the arrest warrant by intentionally withholding or omitting
information from the judicial officer that would have negated the finding of
probable cause. The Magistrate Judge correctly analyzed this question
pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d
667 (1978), and its progeny.
Defendant argues that even when analyzed under Franks that
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to state a claim because probable cause
The Defendant also requested judicial notice of a transcript excerpt from Plaintiff’s
criminal trial, but did so in a footnote in his reply brief. [Doc. 16 at 16 n. 12]. Defendant
argued the transcript excerpt showed probable cause existed for Plaintiff’s arrest because
the criminal charges were not dismissed at Plaintiff’s criminal trial. [Id. at 16 and 17]. The
Defendant’s purpose for seeking judicial notice of the transcript excerpt was inapposite.
Therefore, the Magistrate Judge correctly declined to take judicial notice of the transcript
excerpt.
1
3
was subsequently established by Defendant’s indictment. There is nothing
before the Court at this stage, however, to show whether the information
Defendant omitted from his presentation to the magistrate formed a part of
the basis for any probable cause determination. Therefore, at this stage,
dismissal would be improper. For these reasons, Defendant’s objections in
this regard are overruled.
After careful consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation
and the Defendant’s Objections thereto, the Court finds that the Magistrate
Judge’s proposed conclusions of law are correct and consistent with current
case law. Accordingly, the Court hereby overrules the Defendant’s
Objections and accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant’s Objections [Doc.
19] are OVERRULED; the Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 18] is
ACCEPTED; and the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 8] is GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
(1) The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 8] is
GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s state law
claim asserted against Defendant in his official
capacity; and
(2) The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 8] is
DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s remaining
claims.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 29, 2017
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?